WPP (United Kingdom)

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic disrupted cardiovascular disease management in primary care in England.ObjectiveTo describe the impact of the pandemic on blood pressure screening and hypertension management based on a national quality of care scheme (Quality and Outcomes Framework, QOF) across key demographic, regional and clinical subgroups.MethodsWith NHS England approval, a population-based cohort study was conducted using OpenSAFELY-TPP on 25.2 million NHS patients registered at general practices (March 2019 to March 2023). We examined monthly changes in recorded blood pressure screening in the preceding 5 years in patients aged ≥45 years and recorded the hypertension prevalence and the percentage of patients treated to target (≤140/90 mmHg for patients aged ≤79 years and ≤150/90 mmHg for patients aged ≥80 years) in the preceding 12 months.ResultsThe percentage of patients aged ≥45 years who had blood pressure screening recorded in the preceding 5 years decreased from 90% (March 2019) to 85% (March 2023). Recorded hypertension prevalence was relatively stable at 15% throughout the study period. The percentage of patients with a record of hypertension treated to target in the preceding 12 months reduced from a maximum of 71% (March 2020) to a minimum of 47% (February 2021) in patients aged ≤79 years and from 85% (March 2020) to a minimum of 58% (February 2021) in patients aged ≥80 years before recovery. Blood pressure screening rates in the preceding 5 years remained stable in older people, patients with recorded learning disability or care home status.ConclusionsThe pandemic substantially disrupted hypertension management QOF indicators, which is likely attributable to general reductions of blood pressure measurement including screening. OpenSAFELY can be used to continuously monitor changes in national quality-of-care schemes to identify changes in key clinical subgroups early and support prioritisation of recovery from care disrupted by COVID-19.

Electronic health records (EHRs) and other administrative health data are increasingly used in research to generate evidence on the effectiveness, safety, and utilisation of medical products and services, and to inform public health guidance and policy. Reproducibility is a fundamental step for research credibility and promotes trust in evidence generated from EHRs. At present, ensuring research using EHRs is reproducible can be challenging for researchers. Research software platforms can provide technical solutions to enhance the reproducibility of research conducted using EHRs. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we developed the secure, transparent, analytic open-source software platform OpenSAFELY designed with reproducible research in mind. OpenSAFELY mitigates common barriers to reproducible research by: standardising key workflows around data preparation; removing barriers to code-sharing in secure analysis environments; enforcing public sharing of programming code and codelists; ensuring the same computational environment is used everywhere; integrating new and existing tools that encourage and enable the use of reproducible working practices; and providing an audit trail for all code that is run against the real data to increase transparency. This paper describes OpenSAFELY’s reproducibility-by-design approach in detail.

Abstract Background Long COVID, characterised by various symptoms and complications, potentially increases healthcare utilisation and costs. However, its impact on the NHS remains to be determined. Objective This study aims to assess the healthcare utilisation of individuals with long COVID. Methods With the approval of NHS England, we conducted a matched cohort study using primary and secondary care data via OpenSAFELY, a platform for analysing anonymous electronic health records. The long COVID exposure group, defined by diagnostic codes, was matched with five comparators without long COVID between Nov 2020 and Jan 2023. We compared their total healthcare utilisation from GP consultations, prescriptions, hospital admissions, A&E visits, and outpatient appointments. Healthcare utilisation and costs were evaluated using a two-part model adjusting for covariates. Using a difference-in-difference model, we also compared healthcare utilisation after long COVID with pre-pandemic records. Results We identified 52,988 individuals with a long COVID diagnosis, matched to 264,867 comparators without a diagnosis. In the 12 months post-diagnosis, there was strong evidence that those with long COVID were more likely to use healthcare resources (OR: 8.07, 95% CI: 7.54 – 8.64), and have 49% more healthcare utilisation (RR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.47 – 1.50). Our model estimated that the long COVID group had 30 healthcare visits per year (predicted mean: 29.23, 95% CI: 28.58 - 29.92), compared to 16 in the comparator group (predicted mean visits: 16.04, 95% CI: 15.73 - 16.36). Individuals with long COVID were more likely to have non-zero healthcare expenditures (OR = 7.47, 95% CI = 7.02 – 7.95), with costs being 43% higher than the comparator group (cost ratio = 1.43, 95% CI: 1.38 – 1.49). The long COVID group costs approximately £2,500 per person per year (predicted mean cost: £2,562.50, 95% CI: £2,335.60 - £2,819.22), and the comparator group costs £1,500 (predicted mean cost: £1,527.43, 95% CI: £1,404.33 - 1,664.45.) Historically, individuals with long COVID utilised healthcare resources more frequently, but their average healthcare utilisation increased more after being diagnosed with long COVID, compared to the comparator group. Conclusion Long COVID increases healthcare utilisation and costs. Public health policies should allocate more resources towards preventing, treating, and supporting individuals with long COVID.

Abstract Background Long COVID is a major problem affecting patient health, the health service, and the workforce. To optimise the design of future interventions against COVID-19, and to better plan and allocate health resources, it is critical to quantify the health and economic burden of this novel condition. Methods With the approval of NHS England, we developed OpenPROMPT, a UK cohort study measuring the impact of long COVID on health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL). OpenPROMPT invited responses to Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) using a smartphone application and recruited between November 2022 and October 2023. We used the validated EuroQol EQ-5D questionnaire with the UK Value Set to develop disutility scores (1-utility) for respondents with and without Long COVID using linear mixed models, and we calculated subsequent Quality-Adjusted Life-Months (QALMs) for long COVID. Results We used data from 6,070 participants where 24.7% self-reported long COVID. In multivariable regressions, long COVID had a consistent impact on HRQoL, showing a high probability of reporting loss in quality-of-life (OR: 22, 95% CI:12.35-39.29) compared with people who did not report long COVID. Reporting a disability was the largest predictor of losses of HRQoL (OR: 60.2, 95% CI: 27.79-130.57) across survey responses. Self-reported long COVID was associated with an 0.37 QALM loss. Conclusions We found substantial impacts on quality-of-life due to long COVID, representing a major burden on patients and the health service. We highlight the need for continued support and research for long COVID, as HRQoL scores compared unfavourably to patients with conditions such as multiple sclerosis, heart failure, and renal disease.

SummaryBackgroundTimely evidence of the comparative effectiveness between COVID-19 therapies in real-world settings is needed to inform clinical care. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir versus sotrovimab and molnupiravir in preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes in non-hospitalised high-risk COVID-19 adult patients during Omicron waves.MethodsWith the approval of NHS England, we conducted a real-world cohort study using the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform. Patient-level primary care data were obtained from 24 million people in England and were securely linked with data on COVID-19 infection and therapeutics, hospital admission, and death, covering a period where both nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and sotrovimab were first-line treatment options in community settings (February 10, 2022–November 27, 2022). Molnupiravir (third-line option) was used as an exploratory comparator to nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, both of which were antivirals. Cox proportional hazards model stratified by area was used to compare the risk of 28-day COVID-19 related hospitalisation/death across treatment groups.FindingsA total of 9026 eligible patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (n = 5704) and sotrovimab (n = 3322) were included in the main analysis. The mean age was 52.7 (SD = 14.9) years and 93% (8436/9026) had three or more COVID-19 vaccinations. Within 28 days after treatment initiation, 55/9026 (0.61%) COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths were observed (34/5704 [0.60%] treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and 21/3322 [0.63%] with sotrovimab). After adjusting for demographics, high-risk cohort categories, vaccination status, calendar time, body mass index and other comorbidities, we observed no significant difference in outcome risk between nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and sotrovimab users (HR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.48–1.63; P = 0.698). Results from propensity score weighted model also showed non-significant difference between treatment groups (HR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.45–1.52; P = 0.535). The exploratory analysis comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir users with 1041 molnupiravir users (13/1041 [1.25%] COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths) showed an association in favour of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (HR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.22–0.94; P = 0.033).InterpretationIn routine care of non-hospitalised high-risk adult patients with COVID-19 in England, no substantial difference in the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes was observed between those who received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and sotrovimab between February and November 2022, when Omicron subvariants BA.2, BA.5, or BQ.1 were dominant.Funding10.13039/100014013UK Research and Innovation, 10.13039/100010269Wellcome Trust, 10.13039/501100000265UK Medical Research Council, 10.13039/501100000272National Institute for Health and Care Research, and 10.13039/501100023699Health Data Research UK.

Abstract ObjectiveTo investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Group A streptococcal (GAS) cases and related antibiotic prescriptions.DesignA retrospective cohort study with supporting dashboards with the approval of NHS England.SettingPrimary care practices in England using TPP SystmOne software from January 2018 through March 2023.ParticipantsPatients included were those registered at a TPP practice for each month of the study period. Patients with missing sex or age were excluded, resulting in a population of 23,816,470 in January 2018, increasing to 25,541,940 by March 2023.Main outcome measuresWe calculated monthly counts and crude rates of GAS cases (sore throat/tonsillitis, scarlet fever, invasive group A strep) and prescriptions linked with a GAS case, before (pre-April 2020), during and after (post-April 2021) COVID-19 restrictions. We calculated the maximum and minimum count and rate for each season (years running September-August), and the rate ratio (RR) of the 2022/23 season to the last comparably high season (2017/18).ResultsRecording of GAS cases and antibiotic prescription linked with a GAS case peaked in December 2022, higher than the 2017/2018 peak. The peak rate of monthly sore throat/tonsillitis (possible group A strep throat) recording was 5.33 per 1,000 (RR 2022/23 versus 2017/18 1.39 (CI: 1.38 to 1.40)). Scarlet fever recording peaked at 0.51 per 1,000 (RR 2.68 (CI: 2.59 to 2.77)), and invasive group A streptococcal infection (iGAS) at 0.01 per 1,000 (RR 4.37 (CI: 2.94 to 6.48)). First line antibiotics with a record of a GAS infection peaked at 2.80 per 1,000 (RR 1.37 (CI:1.35 to 1.38)), alternative antibiotics at 2.03 per 1,000 (RR 2.30 (CI:2.26 to 2.34)), and reserved antibiotics at 0.09 per 1,000 (RR 2.42 (CI:2.24 to 2.61)). For individual antibiotics, azithromycin with GAS indication showed the greatest relative increase (RR 7.37 (CI:6.22 to 8.74)).This followed a sharp drop in recording of cases and associated prescriptions during the period of COVID-19 restrictions where the maximum count and rates were lower than any pre COVID-19 minimum.More detailed demographic breakdowns can be found in our regularly updated dashboard report.ConclusionsRates of scarlet fever, sore throat/tonsillitis and iGAS recording and associated antibiotic prescribing peaked in December 2022. Primary care data can supplement existing infectious disease surveillance through linkages with relevant prescribing data and detailed clinical and demographic subgroups.What is knownDuring the COVID-19 pandemic there has been a substantial change to the pattern of circulating viruses and bacteria that cause illnesses. A spike in group A streptococcal infections in England starting December 2022 was associated with 426 deaths, including 48 children as of 7th May 2023. Increased demand for antibiotics in this period led to medicines shortages and the introduction of Serious Shortage Protocols (SSPs). Existing surveillance systems such as notifiable disease reports and GP in-hours surveillance bulletins describe clinical events, but they do not link to relevant prescribing data.What this study adds-This study supports the findings of routine surveillance reports which indicated a drop in GAS infections during the COVID-19 restrictions, followed by a spike in December 2022, demonstrating that the OpenSAFELY platform and primary care data can be used to rapidly describe not only clinical events but also relevant prescribing in the case of future outbreaks.-Antibiotic prescribing with a GAS indication, particularly for phenoxymethylpenicillin alternatives and reserved antibiotics, was higher in the December 2022 peak than in the 2017/2018 peak.

Abstract BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 vaccines are highly effective in preventing severe COVID-19 but require boosting to maintain protection. Changes to circulating variants and prevalent natural immunity may impact on real-world effectiveness of boosters in different time periods and in different populations.MethodsWith NHS England approval, we used linked routine clinical data from >24 million patients to evaluate the effectiveness of the 2022 combined COVID-19 autumn booster and influenza vaccine campaign in non-clinically vulnerable 50-year-olds in England using a regression discontinuity design. Our primary outcome was a composite of 6-week COVID-19 emergency attendance, COVID-19 unplanned hospitalisation, or death. The secondary outcomes were: respiratory hospitalisations or death; any unplanned hospitalisation; and any death.ResultsOur study included 1,917,375 people aged 45-54 years with no evidence of being in a high-risk group prioritised for vaccination. By 26 November 2022, booster vaccine coverage was 11.1% at age 49.75 years increasing to 39.7% at age 50.25 years. The estimated effect of the campaign on the risk of the primary outcome in 50-year-olds during weeks 7-12 after the campaign start was -0.4 per 100,000 (95% CI -7.8, 7.1). For the secondary outcomes the estimated effects were: -0.6 per 100,000 (95%CI -13.5, 12.3) for respiratory outcomes; 5.0 per 100,000 (95%CI -40.7, 50.8) for unplanned hospitalisations; and 3.0 per 100,000 (95%CI -2.7, 8.6) for any death. The results were similar when using different follow-up start dates, different bandwidths, or when estimating the effect of vaccination (rather than the campaign).ConclusionThis study found little evidence that the autumn 2022 vaccination campaign in England was associated with a reduction in severe COVID-19-related outcomes among non-clinically vulnerable 50-year-olds. Possible explanations include the low risk of severe outcomes due to substantial pre-existing vaccine- and infection-induced immunity. Modest booster coverage reduced the precision with which we could estimate effectiveness. The booster campaign may have had effects beyond those estimated, including reducing virus transmission and incidence of mild or moderate COVID-19.

IntroductionThe impact of long COVID on health-related quality of-life (HRQoL) and productivity is not currently known. It is important to understand who is worst affected by long COVID and the cost to the National Health Service (NHS) and society, so that strategies like booster vaccines can be prioritised to the right people. OpenPROMPT aims to understand the impact of long COVID on HRQoL in adults attending English primary care.Methods and analysisWe will ask people to participate in this cohort study through a smartphone app (Airmid), and completing a series of questionnaires held within the app. Questionnaires will ask about HRQoL, productivity and symptoms of long COVID. Participants will be asked to fill in the questionnaires once a month, for 90 days. Questionnaire responses will be linked, where possible, to participants’ existing health records from primary care, secondary care, and COVID testing and vaccination data. Analysis will take place using the OpenSAFELY data platform and will estimate the impact of long COVID on HRQoL, productivity and cost to the NHS.Ethics and disseminationThe Proportionate Review Sub-Committee of the South Central—Berkshire B Research Ethics Committee has reviewed and approved the study and have agreed that we can ask people to take part (22/SC/0198). Our results will provide information to support long-term care, and make recommendations for prevention of long COVID in the future.Trial registration numberNCT05552612.

Abstract ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of sotrovimab (a neutralising monoclonal antibody) vs. molnupiravir (an antiviral) in preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes in non-hospitalised high-risk COVID-19 adult patients.DesignWith the approval of NHS England, we conducted a real-world cohort study using the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform.SettingPatient-level electronic health record data were obtained from 24 million people registered with a general practice in England that uses TPP software. The primary care data were securely linked with data on COVID-19 infection and therapeutics, hospital admission, and death within the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform, covering a period where both medications were frequently prescribed in community settings.ParticipantsNon-hospitalised adult COVID-19 patients at high risk of severe outcomes treated with sotrovimab or molnupiravir since December 16, 2021.InterventionsSotrovimab or molnupiravir administered in the community by COVID-19 Medicine Delivery Units.Main outcome measureCOVID-19 related hospitalisation or COVID-19 related death within 28 days after treatment initiation.ResultsBetween December 16, 2021 and February 10, 2022, 3331 and 2689 patients were treated with sotrovimab and molnupiravir, with no substantial differences in their baseline characteristics. The mean age of all 6020 patients was 52 (SD=16) years; 59% were female, 89% White and 88% had three or more COVID-19 vaccinations. Within 28 days after treatment initiation, 87 (1.4%) COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths were observed (32 treated with sotrovimab and 55 with molnupiravir). Cox proportional hazards models stratified by area showed that after adjusting for demographics, high-risk cohort categories, vaccination status, calendar time, body mass index and other comorbidities, treatment with sotrovimab was associated with a substantially lower risk than treatment with molnupiravir (hazard ratio, HR=0.54, 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.88; P=0.014). Consistent results were obtained from propensity score weighted Cox models (HR=0.50, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.81; P=0.005) and when restricted to fully vaccinated people (HR=0.53, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.90; P=0.019). No substantial effect modifications by other characteristics were detected (all P values for interaction>0.10). Findings were similar in an exploratory analysis of patients treated between February 16 and May 1, 2022 when the Omicron BA.2 variant was dominant in England.ConclusionIn routine care of non-hospitalised high-risk adult patients with COVID-19 in England, those who received sotrovimab were at lower risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes than those receiving molnupiravir.

ObjectivesTo assess the association between routinely prescribed non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and deaths from COVID-19 using OpenSAFELY, a secure analytical platform.MethodsWe conducted two cohort studies from 1 March to 14 June 2020. Working on behalf of National Health Service England, we used routine clinical data in England linked to death data. In study 1, we identified people with an NSAID prescription in the last 3 years from the general population. In study 2, we identified people with rheumatoid arthritis/osteoarthritis. We defined exposure as current NSAID prescription within the 4 months before 1 March 2020. We used Cox regression to estimate HRs for COVID-19 related death in people currently prescribed NSAIDs, compared with those not currently prescribed NSAIDs, accounting for age, sex, comorbidities, other medications and geographical region.ResultsIn study 1, we included 536 423 current NSAID users and 1 927 284 non-users in the general population. We observed no evidence of difference in risk of COVID-19 related death associated with current use (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.14) in the multivariable-adjusted model. In study 2, we included 1 708 781 people with rheumatoid arthritis/osteoarthritis, of whom 175 495 (10%) were current NSAID users. In the multivariable-adjusted model, we observed a lower risk of COVID-19 related death (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.94) associated with current use of NSAID versus non-use.ConclusionsWe found no evidence of a harmful effect of routinely prescribed NSAIDs on COVID-19 related deaths. Risks of COVID-19 do not need to influence decisions about the routine therapeutic use of NSAIDs.